NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.

An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.

Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
Some combination of the above, or other, factors.

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.

Single word search

Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.

Multiple word search

Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.

Connector word search

Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.

Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.

Phrase in double quotes

Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.

Conjunctive search

Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.

Wildcard

Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).

Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).

Not

Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”

Complex searches

You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.

Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).

Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3671 - 3680 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3238 Open Mr. William N. Whitley, Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc., 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President Whitley & Whitley Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard Tower East Shaker Heights Ohio 44122; Dear Mr. Whitley: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether th CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weight approximately 80 pounds.; The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment fo purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.; The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a locatio that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We also note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the licence plates.; The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct som misinformation that was supplied to you an May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk.; In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required t comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standard mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4007 Open Mr. Fernando Benabbi, Ditta Alice, Via Trieste 18, 20146 Milano, Italy; Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 18 20146 Milano Italy; Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance o the child seat, 'Titti,' manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United States.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale.; Each child restraint system, such as the 'Titti' child seat, must b labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that 'THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.' The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: 'THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT.'; In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the followin reference: 'ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1.' This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address:; >>>Ms. Barbara Kelleher, Arvin-Calspan, Inc., Advanced Technolog Center, 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York 14225<<<; Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standar No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers hav the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA SS151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as; >>>any person engaging in the manufacturing or assemblying (sic) o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party.; In addition, there are two other regulations which affec manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551).; A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4729 Open Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac, MI 48057; Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac MI 48057; "FAX: 313-373-0565 Dear Mr. Tompor: This is in reply to your FAX o April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States. Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO. However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation. The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle. The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3516 Open Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting severa interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.; Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which amon other things, requires that an 'interior compartment door assembly located in...a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position...' must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.; The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors wa added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.; You also asked how the term 'instrument panel' is defined for th purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.; You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when 'tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c).'; You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to 'a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent.' The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.; You further state that the loading applied in accordance with sectio 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.; Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of th standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has 'Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length...when measured vertically in side elevation... at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.' You are correct that an armrest complying with section S.3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4379 Open Mr. Walter Mayr, The Austrian Trade Commission, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1114, Washington, DC 20009; Mr. Walter Mayr The Austrian Trade Commission 1875 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1114 Washington DC 20009; Dear Mr. Mayr: This responds to your August 5, 1987 letter to my office and August 1 telephone conversation between Ms. Schott of your staff and Ms. Hom of mine, concerning our regulations for motor vehicles. You enclosed a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels, describing a 'public utility vehicle.' Subsequently, Ms. Schott indicated in her telephone call that Reformwerke Wels has informed her that the vehicles in question have a top speed of 15.53 miles per hour (mph). Based on this information, you asked whether the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of our regulations. The answer is no.; Under a longstanding policy, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has regarded vehicles not to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and therefore not subject to our motor vehicle safety standards, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart form typical highway traffic, and (2) have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mph or less. The utility vehicles manufactured by Reformwerke Wels meet these criteria. Thus, the vehicles are not 'motor vehicles' under our regulations and the manufacture of those vehicles is not regulated by this agency.; You might wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission t learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to the type of utility vehicle manufactured by Reformwerke Wels. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20207. Telephone: (202) 492-6980.; Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1481 Open Mr. William J. Cicero, Supt. of Maintenance, Triboro Coach Corporation, 85-01 24th Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11369; Mr. William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance Triboro Coach Corporation 85-01 24th Avenue Jackson Heights NY 11369; Dear Mr. Cicero: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning you request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974 following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.; We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safet standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unusual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.; However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. SS1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam3146 Open Mr. Robert C. Schultz, 5115 N. Mulligan, Chicago, IL 60630; Mr. Robert C. Schultz 5115 N. Mulligan Chicago IL 60630; Dear Mr. Schultz: This is in response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportatio regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.; From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether an law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.; There is no law administered by this agency which would bar a individual from installing a plastic auxiliary fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual of by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current 'system' performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to thei manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seq.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety- related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .<<<; Thus, if one of the named entities added an auxiliary tank to a use passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4683 Open Tracey Powell Legislative Coordinator Government Relations American Motorcyclist Association P.O. Box 6114 Westerville, OH 43081-6114; Tracey Powell Legislative Coordinator Government Relations American Motorcyclist Association P.O. Box 6114 Westerville OH 43081-6114; Dear Tracey Powell: This is in reply to your letter of November l4 l989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for emergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. 108 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our 'assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . .' As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. 108 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that 'A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate.' The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State. . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle. . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard.' The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles. I hope that this responds to your concerns. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /;
ID: aiam5138 Open Mr. Robert A. Ernst Research Coordinator I-Car Tech Center 4 Systems Drive, Suite C Appleton, WI 54914; Mr. Robert A. Ernst Research Coordinator I-Car Tech Center 4 Systems Drive Suite C Appleton WI 54914; "Dear Mr. Ernst: This responds to your February 4, 1993, lette concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquiries concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. 1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs? 4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment? I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. 2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws? Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the readiness indicator. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. 3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries? Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam2307 Open Honorable Herman E. Talmadge, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Herman E. Talmadge United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in response to your recent letter forwarding a petition fro Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company for reconsideration of the bumper standard recently issued as Part 581 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations.; A number of requests for our view on the Gulf + Western petition hav been forwarded by members of Congress who have received copies of the Gulf + Western petition accompanied by a letter from Mr. James A. Graham.; It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy t issue a notice of action taken on petitions for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made by Gulf + Western.; I assure you that Gulf + Western's comments and the informatio contained in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3238 Open Mr. William N. Whitley, Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc., 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President Whitley & Whitley Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard Tower East Shaker Heights Ohio 44122; Dear Mr. Whitley: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether th CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weight approximately 80 pounds.; The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment fo purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.; The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a locatio that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We also note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the licence plates.; The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct som misinformation that was supplied to you an May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk.; In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required t comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standard mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4007 Open Mr. Fernando Benabbi, Ditta Alice, Via Trieste 18, 20146 Milano, Italy; Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 18 20146 Milano Italy; Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance o the child seat, 'Titti,' manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United States.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale.; Each child restraint system, such as the 'Titti' child seat, must b labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that 'THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.' The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: 'THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT.'; In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the followin reference: 'ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1.' This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address:; >>>Ms. Barbara Kelleher, Arvin-Calspan, Inc., Advanced Technolog Center, 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York 14225<<<; Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standar No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers hav the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA SS151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as; >>>any person engaging in the manufacturing or assemblying (sic) o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party.; In addition, there are two other regulations which affec manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551).; A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4729 Open Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac, MI 48057; Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac MI 48057; "FAX: 313-373-0565 Dear Mr. Tompor: This is in reply to your FAX o April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States. Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO. However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation. The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle. The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3516 Open Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting severa interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.; Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which amon other things, requires that an 'interior compartment door assembly located in...a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position...' must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.; The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors wa added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.; You also asked how the term 'instrument panel' is defined for th purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.; You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when 'tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c).'; You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to 'a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent.' The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.; You further state that the loading applied in accordance with sectio 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.; Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of th standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has 'Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length...when measured vertically in side elevation... at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.' You are correct that an armrest complying with section S.3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4379 Open Mr. Walter Mayr, The Austrian Trade Commission, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1114, Washington, DC 20009; Mr. Walter Mayr The Austrian Trade Commission 1875 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1114 Washington DC 20009; Dear Mr. Mayr: This responds to your August 5, 1987 letter to my office and August 1 telephone conversation between Ms. Schott of your staff and Ms. Hom of mine, concerning our regulations for motor vehicles. You enclosed a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels, describing a 'public utility vehicle.' Subsequently, Ms. Schott indicated in her telephone call that Reformwerke Wels has informed her that the vehicles in question have a top speed of 15.53 miles per hour (mph). Based on this information, you asked whether the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of our regulations. The answer is no.; Under a longstanding policy, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has regarded vehicles not to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and therefore not subject to our motor vehicle safety standards, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart form typical highway traffic, and (2) have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mph or less. The utility vehicles manufactured by Reformwerke Wels meet these criteria. Thus, the vehicles are not 'motor vehicles' under our regulations and the manufacture of those vehicles is not regulated by this agency.; You might wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission t learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to the type of utility vehicle manufactured by Reformwerke Wels. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20207. Telephone: (202) 492-6980.; Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1481 Open Mr. William J. Cicero, Supt. of Maintenance, Triboro Coach Corporation, 85-01 24th Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11369; Mr. William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance Triboro Coach Corporation 85-01 24th Avenue Jackson Heights NY 11369; Dear Mr. Cicero: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning you request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974 following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.; We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safet standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unusual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.; However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. SS1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam3146 Open Mr. Robert C. Schultz, 5115 N. Mulligan, Chicago, IL 60630; Mr. Robert C. Schultz 5115 N. Mulligan Chicago IL 60630; Dear Mr. Schultz: This is in response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportatio regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.; From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether an law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.; There is no law administered by this agency which would bar a individual from installing a plastic auxiliary fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual of by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current 'system' performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to thei manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seq.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety- related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .<<<; Thus, if one of the named entities added an auxiliary tank to a use passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4683 Open Tracey Powell Legislative Coordinator Government Relations American Motorcyclist Association P.O. Box 6114 Westerville, OH 43081-6114; Tracey Powell Legislative Coordinator Government Relations American Motorcyclist Association P.O. Box 6114 Westerville OH 43081-6114; Dear Tracey Powell: This is in reply to your letter of November l4 l989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for emergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. 108 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our 'assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . .' As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. 108 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that 'A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate.' The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State. . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle. . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard.' The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles. I hope that this responds to your concerns. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /;
ID: aiam5138 Open Mr. Robert A. Ernst Research Coordinator I-Car Tech Center 4 Systems Drive, Suite C Appleton, WI 54914; Mr. Robert A. Ernst Research Coordinator I-Car Tech Center 4 Systems Drive Suite C Appleton WI 54914; "Dear Mr. Ernst: This responds to your February 4, 1993, lette concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquiries concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. 1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs? 4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment? I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. 2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws? Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the readiness indicator. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. 3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries? Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam2307 Open Honorable Herman E. Talmadge, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Herman E. Talmadge United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in response to your recent letter forwarding a petition fro Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company for reconsideration of the bumper standard recently issued as Part 581 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations.; A number of requests for our view on the Gulf + Western petition hav been forwarded by members of Congress who have received copies of the Gulf + Western petition accompanied by a letter from Mr. James A. Graham.; It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy t issue a notice of action taken on petitions for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made by Gulf + Western.; I assure you that Gulf + Western's comments and the informatio contained in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3238

ID: aiam4007

ID: aiam4729

ID: aiam3516

ID: aiam4379

ID: aiam1481

ID: aiam3146

ID: aiam4683

ID: aiam5138

ID: aiam2307

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?